There is a difference between theme and style. Scorsese movies tend to follow a number of similar patterns but stylistically only Casino and Goodfellas could really be called similar. Aside from that he manages to create a separate atmosphere for all of his films - After Hours looks nothing like Raging Bull which looks nothing like Taxi Driver which looks nothing like The Age of Innocence.

Tarantino meanwhile uses very effective cinematic techniques in his filming but regardless of genre his movies still all feel quite similar in style. I find some of the things he's become so reliant upon in his filming - woman talking like pop culture badasses, random shots of feet, a guy cutting a four minute monologue, extended long scenes to fit in an awesome song from his record collection - too distracting now from the stories that he's trying to tell. He's very talented but I'd prefer for him to do something self contained again instead of working in these grand, epic environments.

Tarantino working on a story like 'Buried' or '27 hours' where the dialogue has to be sacrificed and inventive - that's the kind of thing I'd like to see him attempt.

Also the sight and sound poll annoys me because of its emphasis on important movies. I think there needs to be a separate list for the films that people actually appreciate the most and the stuff they recognise for its cinematic contribution. For example I can't stand movies like 8 1/2 and Breathless but I appreciate their influence in opening up the form of moviemaking and helping to inspire perhaps the greatest period in American cinema.

But that is just a perception of genres. In fact, styllistically all the Scorsese movies are pretty similar, he always use the same tricks, the difference is just because he portrays different eras of america, so the movies always has different ambients. But yes, i understand what you mean.

The problem is, i think many people go to the cinema looking for stories when this isn't necessary at all. The best example for this is Tarantino, there is a story in all his movies but is a secondary thing, because he knows that the majority of his thing is mostly fucking trivial. In the 90's this was accepted because a great portion of his fans was looking for the gangsters thing, the violence and the blood, when he stop that, the critics began

I don't understand why a director should be able to do different genres or things, you want diversity? great. But styles are suitted for very specific things and in one simple genre you're able to do differents themes even if the movies seems to fold between them. unless you are a monster and are suitted for everything (but this doesn't exist) of you're ambiciousand naive. In fact, the majority of the greatest director of all time are one dimensional in his style: Bresson, Ozu, Hitchcock, Griffith, etc.

But that is just a perception of genres. In fact, styllistically all the Scorsese movies are pretty similar, he always use the same tricks, the difference is just because he portrays different eras of america, so the movies always has different ambients. But yes, i understand what you mean.

The problem is, i think many people go to the cinema looking for stories when this isn't necessary at all. The best example for this is Tarantino, there is a story in all his movies but is a secondary thing, because he knows that the majority of his thing is mostly fucking trivial. In the 90's this was accepted because a great portion of his fans was looking for the gangsters thing, the violence and the blood, when he stop that, the critics began

I don't understand why a director should be able to do different genres or things, you want diversity? great. But styles are suitted for very specific things and in one simple genre you're able to do differents themes even if the movies seems to fold between them. unless you are a monster and are suitted for everything (but this doesn't exist) of you're ambiciousand naive. In fact, the majority of the greatest director of all time are one dimensional in his style: Bresson, Ozu, Hitchcock, Griffith, etc.

This is where we will always disagree. I think cinema should be a mixture of story and emotion. I don't want to be spoonfed but at the same time I do want to be taken on a narrative journey where there is a clear plot in construction. The best films imo are the ones which marry a great story to an engrossing visual style and intriguing characterisation.

I still think Tarantino needs to stretch himself more stylistically but I see where you're coming from. It is nice that he has his own "look" which his fans recognise, appreciate and anticipate.

I'll watch it as soon as I can. Robert California haha. If only he worked that character into that time frame. Ok, now I'm being too outlandish.

Watched some more: The Campaign & finished Battleship about an hour ago.

Campaign was like most comedies this year: severely disappointing and flat. Can't believe with two of my favorite comic actors involved it wasn't very good.

Battleship was the definition of a popcorn flick. Which isn't an insult. It was loads of fun. Once the action began it never stopped. I liked it. Quite a bit tbhayley. A nice surprise. I'd even consider owning it.